Two persons described as members of Youth Defence won their appeal to the Supreme Court today against a High Court decision permitting the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) to continue its action seeking permanent orders and damages arising from a picket of one of its clinics in March 1999.
The proceedings arose from a Youth Defence picket, supported by a number of American anti-abortion activists,
of the IFPA clinic at Cathal Brugha Street, Dublin, in March 1999. Today's appeal was taken by Mr Maurice Colgan and Ms Niamh Nic Mathuna.
On March 8th, 1999, the High Court granted the IFPA an interim order restraining Youth Defence and three persons, including Mr Colgan and Ms Nic Mathuna, from picketing the headquarters and clinics of the IFPA. An interlocutory order to the same effect was granted on March 11th, 1999.
Later proceedings were issued alleging breach of the order restraining picketing.
At a hearing in August 1999, counsel for Youth Defence and other parties undertook to abide by the terms of the March order and proceedings were struck out against other persons.
Mr Colgan, of Elmesborough Crescent, Tallaght, Dublin, appealed against part of the High Court order of Mr Justice O'Donovan of August 18th, 1999.
He appealed against the judge's failure to dismiss the motion against him and also the failure to award him costs against the IFPA, claiming the judge erred in law and in fact.
That appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said it appeared Mr Colgan should never have been before the court at all.
The trial judge had noted Mr Colgan was not named or identified in affidavits on behalf of the IFPA as being in breach of the March High Court order and had accepted Mr Colgan's assertion he did not commit any act which could be construed as a breach of that order.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court the two members of Youth Defence argued that the court should reverse the High High Court finding. They claimed there was an issue of law involved and that as the IFPA was bringing the action there was an onus on that organisation to explain in a sworn statement why there as extensive delay in issuing a statement of claim (which would have outlined its claim for damages).
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously found in favour of the two members of Youth Defence.